Two former derivatives traders at Investec have lost a case against their former employer over £6.3 million in unpaid bonuses.

UK High Court Judge Mr Justice Leggatt today dismissed Andrew Brogden and Robert Reid's claim against their former employer, ordering them to pay costs. He denied leave to appeal the ruling.

Brogden and Reid, previously head and deputy head of structured equity derivatives, respectively, at Investec, had claimed the bank failed to honour an unwritten bonus agreement for the 2010/2011 financial year.

David Van Der Walt, chief executive of Investec in London, said in a statement: "We are delighted with this result. Investec had to take a stand in this matter, we had to do the right thing by our shareholders and our dedicated employees. This was a baseless claim, and an unwarranted attack on our institution, our culture and values.

"The judge had rejected the claims in their entirety and found that we operate a fair and rational bonus system which rewards those who generate returns for our stakeholders and clients."

Mr Justice Leggatt called the explanations for the claimants lack of evidence "fanciful", according to documents citing the ruling, adding that Brogden's account of events "does not stand a moment's serious scrutiny" and that the "claimants own evidence does not support the case".

The pair said they joined Investec from Santander in 2007 on the understanding that their bonuses would be calculated using a so-called ‘economic value added’ (EVA) formula that would not reference their desk’s profit and loss figure.

Brogden and Reid each received bonuses in excess of £1 million during their first few years at the bank – they were £6.2 million and £3.8 million at highest point in 2007/08 – according to court documents. However, the figures dropped to discretionary sums of £150,000 and £100,000 in the year 2010/11, when Investec said its structured equity derivatives desk operated at a loss.

In their amended points of claim form, Brogden and Reid alleged that Investec either made a “genuine” mistake in calculating EVA for that year, or deliberately did not calculate as agreed. The pair claimed that Investec calculated EVA for their desk to be (minus) -£8.7 million for the financial year 2010/11, while Brogden calculated figures based on EVA to the sum of £37.1 million.

Investec denied that there was a verbal agreement with Brogden and Reid prior to their employment that their bonuses would be calculated using a separate EVA formula and not be tied to profit and loss.

During the trial Mr Justice Leggatt disputed the argument that the acronym EVA was a common term used in financial markets and pointed to the dangers of operating each desk as a separate silo. “What it shows is that you can’t run an organisation as if it is a collection of independent businesses,” he said in court last week.